Case Digest of Pesigan v. Angeles

PESIGAN V. ANGELES [129 S 174] - F: Anselmo and Marcelo Pesigan, carabao dealers, transported in an Isuzu 10-wheeler truck in the evening of 4/2/82 26 carabaos and a calf from Sipocot, Camarines Sur w/ P. Garcia, Batangas as destination. Inspite of the permit to transport and the health certificate and 3 other certificates of inspection, the carabaos, while passing at Basud, Camarines Norte,
were confiscated by the town's police station commander and the provincial veterinarian. The confiscation was based on EO 626-A w/c provided for the confiscation and forfeiture by the government of carabaos transported from one province to another. The Pesigans filed against the two officials an action for replevin for the recovery of carabaos. The case was dismissed for lack of cause of action. Hence, this appeal under R 45 of the ROC.

HELD: We hold that said EO should not be enforced against the Pesigans on 4/2/82 bec it is a penal regulation (the confiscation and forfeiture provision or sanction makes EO 626-A a penal statute) published more than 2 mos. later in the OG dated 6/14/82. It became effective only 15 days thereafter as provided in Art. 2, NCC and Sec. 11 of the Revised Admin. Code.
The word "laws" in Art. 2 includes circulars and regulations w/c prescribe penalties. Publication is necessary to apprise the public of the contents of the regulations and make the said penalties binding on the persons affected thereby.


For more case digests visit
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests